Nasa States They Have no idea what these Orbs Of Light UFO's Are!!!!!!

in the macro-view...unknown orbs of 'Light' are not of this material universe... they are anomalies which are 'spirit' energies from the unseen
realms.

you all have done a good job of analysis on the Shuttle space junk reflections...

its just a guess, but the spirit dimension entities that are seen as orbs of light, in the sky or under water or moving through walls, as 'ghosts'
do... are all of the same origin.....

they traverse in all directions, (its not limited to 3 dimensional time-space) and we only catch a glimpse of them moving when the conditions are
right...perhaps the glimpses we see are when the entities are moving slow-or-fast/or in forward time or in backward time...

these energy orbs are only what we visually 'see' there may be other energy levels involved that we do not precieve (UV & IR come immediately to mind,
but x-ray & gamma ray emissions might be there too, to see the total entity or spirit being...

The funny thing is, that us "believers" dont have to listen to the belches and farts coming out of mainstreams mouth because we know there is as
much corroborating eyewitness, video, and physical evidence to support UFO/interdimensional objects and high strangeness related therein, as there is
that the 9/11 official story is complete crapola. Also there have been studies done that show people that do not believe the 9/11 official story are
more likely to not believe the JFK official story, and are more likely to believe in other conspiracies. However true this may be, the only
conspiracies and phenomena that most of us talk about all the time on these forums are ones that have a substancial amount of evidence of varying
forms to back them up.

It may not be a flying disc parked in your garage, but the evidence we've been able to obtain over the years, (documents, picture, videos, testimony,
physical traces, bob white object, abduction reports with scientific backing of psychologists and polygraphs, crop circles) has been pretty damn good
nonetheless. Also if you go to this link torrentz.eu... all the videos are great, but the Nancy Talbott
one is especially awesome, containing some photographic anomalies of the highest strangeness occuring in Denmark (spirit realm, interdimensionality).
Do your own research. UFOTVstudios (youtube channel) is a great place to start for skeptics. "Best UFO and ET Video Evidence" is a great video. Also
download this if possible torrentz.eu... another Jaime Maussan UFO vid compilation, you will not be
able to deny these videos are authentic. Good day.

I have given your response a great deal of thought. One thing that we forgot to bring to this discussion is the on board radar of the shuttle itself.
There is also the question of the on board scopes. Considering your response, I have come to my own conclusion that leaves me with two possibilities.

NASA is either exaggerating about their tracking capabilities or they are flat out lying. Considering the way that the military keeps things
classified, even the most benign things, we can conclude that NASA is keeping secrets.

Why the secrecy? How come some days NASA can say "it was a meteor" and other days they say "we have no idea" when in fact they are using the same
technology to track both?

What if Russians had a secret space plane and part of their mission was to intercept a shuttle in orbit? Would NASA say, "hey CNN we have a Russian
mig out here" or would they keep it secret?

It will be kept secret, you can bank on that.

This also brings me to another point. When China shot down that defunct satellite, NASA was tracking it. What did they show the public? That's right,
a piece of crap CGI cartoon. Where are my HD videos of a rocket hitting a satellite that my tax dollars are paying for?

Most of the good stuff is being kept secret simply because the Air Force is concerned with people "knowing" what our space capabilities are. What a
joke, even if we give our enemies the blue prints to our best gear they still would not be able to compete or even begin to think about competing.

First step is to acknowledge the anomaly, second step is to identify it. They don't know what it is. And because they can't it is none other than a
UFO. Why is the science community and media so afraid of this acronym? Too many stigmas? UFO doesn't mean this anomaly is a flying saucer with
extraterrestrials, it only means what it means, an unidentified flying object. End of story.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, BIGPoJo, it really helps pinpoint the source of some of the major misconceptions that have infested the minds of a
lot of very bright space-minded folks out there.

It's the same old principle enunciated early in the last century by Will Rogers: "It ain't what you don't know what makes you look like a fool,
it's what you DO know what ain't so."

You assume, for example, that the 'on board radar' of the shuttle can track this stuff -- you actually assume that NASA has bragged that this is
true -- and so the absence of data from such tracking is proof of a coverup.

But it ain't so. Without proof, you just dreamed it up.

The on-board radar on the shuttle was called the Ku-Band system, and it was a steerable dish antenna mounted along the starboard payload bay sill,
just aft of the crew cabin. The antenna's main use was for hi-rate comm via relay satellites in geosync orbit -- this was about the only way to get
live TV down during missions [three ground sites -- Canaveral, Goldstone, and Diego Garcia could also do it during occasional brief line-of-sight
passes].

During rendezvous and deploy missions, the antenna was used in skin-track mode to follow nearby satellites, if they were large enough and within a few
miles. Closer than a few hundred ft, it could not be used because it operated in an alternating send/receive mode so that the 'ping' signal would
reflect back before it could be reconfigured to 'listen' mode -- speed of light issues, there.

Whenever it was operating in track mode, it could not ALSO operate in hi-rate comm mode – one mode requires pointing the dish at the target, the
other mode requires pointing it at one of the TDRS relay satellites. During those phases of an approach [or departure], TV images were sent down along
the much slower S-band system that only allowed one full-screen view every several seconds. This mode was called ‘Sequential Still Video’, and on
youtube has also on occasion been criticized ignorantly as a coverup technique.

Once inside the minimum radar operating range, the shuttle switched back to Ku-band comm., live TV could resume, and range measurements were performed
with laser sensors out the overhead window, or mounted in the payload bay, or both.

The radar was never used to scan for 'space junk' or to watch anything except planned slow-moving targets. 'Space junk' from other vehicles would
have flashed by too quickly -- and been too small -- for detection of any recognizable return.

I know this is true because I operated the system as a lead 'Rendezvous Guidance and Procedures Officer' in the 'trench' -- the front row in
Mission Control -- for a number of such missions in the 1980s. In those years I wrote the crew procedures handbooks for all the rendezvous systems,
and the console procedures/reference handbook for that particular specialization. I wrote many of the post-mission performance reports.

I point this out because your response is very helpful in explaining why your conclusions are so off base, and what you and others can do to evolve
towards more reality-based interpretations of these kinds of reports. The key productive mind-set is to realize that your understanding of the events
is stymied by your mistaken belief in some assumptions you have made and then locked into your mind as 'facts', which actually are not true. Once
that blockage is removed, you can move forward and learn the reality of spaceflight operations, and then contribute positively to speculation on what
these sorts of reports are caused by.

You can become part of the solution instead of, as now, being a big part of the problem.

Another example -- your assumption that NASA was tracking the Chinese satellite intercept. What possible assets did you imagine that NASA possessed
within range of that event in the skies low over China?

I have given your response a great deal of thought. One thing that we forgot to bring to this discussion is the on board radar of the shuttle itself.
There is also the question of the on board scopes. Considering your response, I have come to my own conclusion that leaves me with two possibilities.
NASA is either exaggerating about their tracking capabilities or they are flat out lying. Considering the way that the military keeps things
classified, even the most benign things, we can conclude that NASA is keeping secrets.

[snip]
This also brings me to another point. When China shot down that defunct satellite, NASA was tracking it. What did they show the public? That's right,
a piece of crap CGI cartoon. Where are my HD videos of a rocket hitting a satellite that my tax dollars are paying for?

[snip] Does a science vessel need to be shrouded in secrecy? Stay classy NASA.

I never asserted that they can view these objects using on-board radar or scopes, merely that it needed to be discussed. Also, to sit there and tell
me we have no data on that Chinese collision is ignorant. If that was the case China could say it made a direct hit and just lie about it, how would
NASA know?

I think my main problem is that I am assuming NASA and the Air Force share tracking data. They either do and its classified or they don't and it too
is classified.

If all that NASA has to offer is already public, then I don't want to pay for it anymore. Based on your post they can't even tell the difference
between shuttle "dander", secret Chinese space planes, or even Aliens for that matter.

Also, its not 1990 anymore Jim. Its 2011 and we have made some huge advancements in every field of science in 20 years.

A person with an Iphone and a weather balloon can get better quality footage of space than NASA. What a joke!

I never asserted that they can view these objects using on-board radar or scopes, merely that it needed to be discussed. Also, to sit there and tell
me we have no data on that Chinese collision is ignorant. If that was the case China could say it made a direct hit and just lie about it, how would
NASA know?

Never said that the US has no data on the Chinese sat intercept -- they have some juicy stuff including imagery that I saw at a technical conference
in Colorado Springs a few years ago [and photographed off their display].

I was responding to your claim that NASA had the data, from its own sensors. Nope.

The DoD sends NASA 'conjunction alerts' based on their own catalog, which as far as I know is not available real-time to NASA, who would have no use
of it aside for collision warnings -- which the DoD already does. The NASA space debris guys do have access to the DoD general satellite catalog,
which is classified because of the old 'sources and methods' excuse -- probably justified in this case, but we can disagree over that.

The real issue here is whether NASA 'tracks' small objects drifting NEAR the shuttle -- or the station. Aside from the shuttle's Ku-Band used to track
payloads, and cameras on the exterior of the shuttle and station, there is to my knowledge no other space-based tracking capability.

There has never been a serious requirement for that capability.

Ground tracking can pick up objects as they drift away from shuttle or station sufficiently to make their own 'blip', but as a rule ground sites
refrain from painting manned spacecraft with powerful pulses, to avoid EMI.

This does strike a lot of enthusiasts as 'unbelievable' because they have this imaginary image of radar screens continuously monitoring objects as
they circle Earth, and screens ATC-style monitoring the space around manned spacecraft all the time. It just ain't so.

Do we agree on this?

ADD:

Here's your exact assertion which I dispute:

NASA is either exaggerating about their tracking capabilities or they are flat out lying. Considering the way that the military keeps things
classified, even the most benign things, we can conclude that NASA is keeping secrets.

Where exactly did NASA 'exaggerate' about its tracking capabilities? I'm suggesting you imagined it.

Nice response, and I can agree with you considering you cleared up the issue with DoD sharing its tracking data. I am also fully aware of the over use
of classification on things as benign as a weather report.

I will stand by my assertion that NASA does not give a straight answer when it comes to these types of events. Its always reported in the media as
"NASA says lights were fireball" or "NASA says its just a meteor" when in fact NASA cannot even verify its own claims.

Their claims could easily be verified by cross checking NORADs data. Why they don't is beyond me.

This also raises the question. If NASA found something in orbit that appeared to be an intelligent unknown craft pacing them in orbit, would they tell
anyone? What if the footage was leaked, would they spin it as shuttle "dandruff"?

I will stand by my assertion that NASA does not give a straight answer when it comes to these types of events. Its always reported in the media as
"NASA says lights were fireball" or "NASA says its just a meteor" when in fact NASA cannot even verify its own claims.

Their claims could easily be verified by cross checking NORADs data. Why they don't is beyond me.

There you go agaiin, BIGPoJo, 'assuming the consequent'. To prove something is weird, you start out with an unproven premise that includes it being
weird.

On a few occasions I've heard NASA mission commentators refer to moving dots on the TV as 'meteors' [eg, STS-63], and like you I think that's a
silly ad-hoc bad assumption of their own -- actual meteors are rarely seen from spacecraft and even more rarely imaged. The dots are satisfactorilly
explained to me and everybody else in mission control with whom I've discussed them to be sunlit small stuff coming off or out of the shuttle. For
some famous cases such as STS-48 and STS-80 I've published detailed studies which prove this identification.

But I've never heard any official, after taking a look at a video and conducting a real investigation, use the 'meteor' excuse. Please direct me to
such assertions, if any actually exist, as you want us to believe.

So your assumption that "if they were meteors" and officials didn't "easily" [again, your baseless assumption]verify that with NORAD proves the
officials are lying is, to me, a false conclusion based on sloppy logic and arbitrary premises.

This also raises the question. If NASA found something in orbit that appeared to be an intelligent unknown craft pacing them in orbit, would they tell
anyone? What if the footage was leaked, would they spin it as shuttle "dandruff"?

I would like to see the policy on that type of situation.

So you start off by assuming there IS such a policy, and then logically conclude that your argument PROVES there is such a policy.

In Mission Control we jokingly call that kind of illogic a "self-eating watermelon".

Because of the potential that stuff seen out windows or on TV monitors is safety related -- signs of vehicle malfunction or damage, for example -- it
is in my experience and based on wide discussions with other coleagues, always quickly and fully discussed over the air/ground and in the MCC.

Even Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper, believers in unexplainable phenomena [but NONE on actual spaceflights, you should note] mentioned how they had
never received any directives on keeping SOME of the stuff they might see, secret. When asked, modern astronauts who have ventured into this
controversy also have flat out declared there ARE no such constraints or policies. And astronauts include civilians, foreign nationals, and other
people way behind the reach [or the fist] orf some secret coverup cabal.

But it always helps if you start out believing that people with testimony contrary to your preferred conclusions are liars and/or fools. Do you do
that here, too?

The question to NASA is have you ever heard of Edison.
Do you know what a filament is.
Do you know how to make light without a filament.
Of course NASA does not know number 3 as that is applicable in space.
Yeah it Tesla orbs or Tesla light from highly varying electrostatic electricity waves
that also propel the ship that goes with the light at one time was only a foo but
is grown up into a big ship that goes in outer space.

Aside from legitimate bureaucratic secrets such as contractual bidding, personnel and medical records, etc., the only 'classified' stuff -- at the
DoD 'Secret' level -- I've ever run into dealt with operational characteristics of the DoD payloads carried on shuttles back in the 1980s [last one
in 1992 or thereabouts]. I worked some of those missions and the classified data dealt with information that could have been used to negate the
effectiveness of the payloads if known. nothing alien about the data.

Maybe you should review my posts before you lump me in with the "its an Alien ship" crowd.

Also, its sad when the stories that NASA tries to spin even have your PR team in disbelief.

The one fact you cannot dispute is that neither you or I have been in orbit. The people who go into orbit are part of ***GASP*** DoD. You can pretend
like space is not a competitive military theater when most people know it is for a fact.

To shrug these things off as "shuttle dander" without further investigation is just ridiculous.

So I will ask you the question directly Jim.

If NASA encounters an unknown CRAFT (unknown, not alien) in our orbit that paces the shuttle, how will they proceed?

Maybe you should review my posts before you lump me in with the "its an Alien ship" crowd.

I don't think I meant to, but if I carelessly worded a response to give that impression, I apologize.

Also, its sad when the stories that NASA tries to spin even have your PR team in disbelief.

There you go again, performing your mind-reading trick by 'assuming' what you are SURE Hale was thinking.

How about -- hold onto your hat at the audacity here -- you ASK Hale?

The one fact you cannot dispute is that neither you or I have been in orbit.

The difference is, some of us have been professionally and personally involved with human spaceflight for many years, so we might think we have a more
reality-based impression of what goes on there than, say, somebody who has watched a lot of youtube videos.

The people who go into orbit are part of ***GASP*** DoD. You can pretend like space is not a competitive military theater when most people
know it is for a fact.

Here's another example of something you are really really sure you know, but what ain't so. You're really defiantly rejecting my suggestion you
make sure what you say is true, is really true. Shuttle crewmembers have also been civilians, foreign nationals, even -- GASP! -- Russians... all of
them, you 'assume', enslaved to the Pentagon.

To shrug these things off as "shuttle dander" without further investigation is just ridiculous.

Sure it would be -- if I actually had done that. But since I've actually carried out extensive investigations and interviews about these major cases
and posted my reports, I don't fall into that category of ridiculosity.

You have examined my STS-48 and STS-80 reports, haven't you? Or did you just "assume" they would be unconvincing, and not waste the time?

So I will ask you the question directly Jim. If NASA encounters an unknown CRAFT (unknown, not alien) in our orbit that paces the shuttle,
how will they proceed?

To the best of my knowledge, there are no instructions prepared for such an eventuality, and the question itself is ridiculous because it assumes
[again, that nasty word, "assumes"] that a 'CRAFT' would be immediatgely recognizable, as opposed to the many, many, MANY other kinds of stuff
[including shuttle 'dandruff'] that can be seen outside.

In my experience, and in most other similar cases I have learned about through many many interviews and reading of transcripts, the more unusual a
sighting is, the quicker and fuller is the verbal and video descriptions sent back, in the clear, to Houston.

Aldrin does tell a story of NOT reporting a flasher out the Apollo-11 window because of concern it would freak out the UFO nuts, but other Apollo
flights did openly and immediately report similar sightings -- which, by the way, validated Aldrin's anxiety because they DID freak out the UFO nuts
[and still do as they are endlessly, gullibly repeated]. But even in Aldrin's case the full story was in their debriefings, declassified for
decades.

...but the reason the question is a trick is that any answer I give, you can retort that I wasn't privy to the highest levels of secrecy and the
fantabulous miraculous 'secret voice channels' and 'secret cameras'.

The ones you have 'assumed' MUST have existed, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

You make several assumptions about me in your post that are far from the truth. But I will bite.

First of all I was talking about our assets in orbit, not Russia's. Russia is far more open than NASA by a long shot, so lets not even go there.

I didn't know this thread was about STS-48 and 80...

Lastly, Aldrin did not report some things to HOUSTON because he was afraid of the mission being aborted. He could care less if he stirs up some UFO
believers. The one thing he did report to Houston, he actually asked where the booster was because he thought that could be what he was seeing even
though it did not match its apparent shape.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
You make several assumptions about me in your post that are far from the truth. But I will bite.

By all means correct the record.

First of all I was talking about our assets in orbit, not Russia's. Russia is far more open than NASA by a long shot, so lets not even go
there.

If you think we have any assets in orbit that track other satellites, you have information sources that I haven't seen. Please help me see the truth
and give me a verifiable source.

I didn't know this thread was about STS-48 and 80...

You stated that my claiming these kinds of videos were caused by shuttle dandruff was preposterous. So I merely mentioned the two major reports I've
produced in which I make that argument. You seem willing to deem an argument preposterous without even bothering to locate and read the argument. Sure
saves time.

Lastly, Aldrin did not report some things to HOUSTON because he was afraid of the mission being aborted. He could care less if he stirs up
some UFO believers.

And the source for your assessment of Aldrin's mind processes is -- exactly what link, please?

The one thing he did report to Houston, he actually asked where the booster was because he thought that could be what he was seeing even
though it did not match its apparent shape.

And they didn't ask about what the figured out later it must have been, one of the SLA panels. You are aware that the S4B and SLA panels were
photographed from Earth-based telescopes on several Apollo missions, in the relative positions consistent with these eyeball reports? I'll be happy
to give you a link to those photos.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.